Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Jewish Wingnut Wants Nationalist Party With Charismatic Leader

Wingnut radio host Michael Savage, who is loony even by wingnut standards, thinks the United States needs a third party, one based on nationalism and focused on “borders, language and culture.” And it needs to have a charismatic leader to unite the country against Republicans and Democrats:

“There is no Republican Party,” Savage told fellow talk show host Aaron Klein. “It’s an appendage of the Democrat machine, as we’ve all just seen. It’s two-card Monte, as we well know. It’s a game being played against the American people. You’ve got the drunk Boehner on the one side, and the quasi-pseudo-crypto Marxist on the other, who is really just enjoying the ride in Hawaii right now, representing his factions.”

Instead, “We need a nationalist party in the United States of America,” said Savage on WABC’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” suggesting a party focused on “borders, language and culture.”

He continued: “You have the rudiments of a new party in this country called a tea party. They need to restructure their party. They need a charismatic leader, which they don’t have. When you say, ‘Tea party,’ no one knows who the leader is, because there is no leader. No man has stepped forward who can lead that party – no one who is an articulate speaker, a charismatic mover of people.

The Republican Tea Party nominates a guy who never really tried to get elected, he just expected it to happen by magic and Salvage claims its a Democrat plot, WTF? Anyway, the Tea Party cannot have a single leader because the various owners and donors of the Tea Party(s) cannot agree. And why does this leader have to be a man?

Oh yes, because a third party is going to work. Lots of votes to capture there, yessiree.

I’d love to see these guys in a political debate. “What is your policy on and how will your economic strategy adapt to it?” “Well you see, Moderator, this is a cultural issue, and this is how I’m going to fix American culture.”

For those saying Savage is ignorant of history, I do suggest reading the whole article. He does acknowledge the apparent connection to the Nazi party, making a comment along the lines of “Yeah, extreme nationalism has a bad name because of this whole ‘Hitler’ deal, but really it turns out to actually be awesome!”

He’s not ignorant of the connection, he just doesn’t give a fuck. heh…

Meanwhile, I’d be delighted if someone managed to do this. Teabaggers aren’t numerous enough to actually win an election without the unthinking votes of Republicans who can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat under any circumstance. If they actually split off from the GOP, though, they’d force the Republicans to either shift left (to try and garner more of the moderate vote) or wither and die.

Savage might want to be careful what he wishes for as the old saying goes. Its not likely but he just might get it. Its possible that any nationalist party that comes to power in the United States for one reason or another won’t like him. If that’s the case, assuming its anything like Britain’s EDL or BNP, he won’t like the consequences.

When you say, ‘Tea party,’ no one knows who the leader is, because there is no leader. No man has stepped forward who can lead that party – no one who is an articulate speaker, a charismatic mover of people.

Duh. It’s the Teabaggers. On the other hand, it would be easy to be a giant among pigmies, at least until they RINO’d you for not being pure enough.

It is song lyrics:
When you say, ‘Tea partay,’
no one knows who the leader is,
because there is no leader.
because There are no leaders todayayayay

And we tried that ultranationalist party thing beck (back/beck – total fortunate accident found during spellcheck) in the 20’s – perhaps you can recall the Klan rallies…that whole movement was not so progressive on the Jewish or race question as you may be thinking

According to Wik the ‘Bellamy salute’ had nothing to do with the Roman salute used by the Fascists or its NatSoc derivative, both of which it predated by many years. Wik says it was dropped in the 40s because of the resemblance, although I’m sure I remember seeing it depicted in old Peanuts cartoons …

criticaldragon1177:

assuming its anything like Britain’s EDL or BNP, he won’t like the consequences.

The EDL certainly isn’t anti-semitic — they’ve even got a ‘Jewish division’ and the Israeli flag has been displayed at some of their demos, leading neo-Nazis to dismiss them as neocon Zionist stooges.

eric:

Language – the more the merrier.

Might make the business of government rather complicated, no?

Culture – celebrate all of them

Except conservative white Christian culture, I’m guessing. What about honour killings and FGM — would they have a place in your inclusive diversity rainbow?

…the United States needs a third party, one based on nationalism and focused on “borders, language and culture.”

The whole point of a 3rd party is that it’s supposed to be distinguishable from the major two. Just add “plutocracy” to the above and you’re talking about Republicans.

Which is why genuine radical rightists or nationalists are not Republican-type ‘conservatives’. The unrestrained capitalism which produces plutocracy also erodes the integrity of ethnic identities. The libertarian ideals of the political ‘Right’ work hand in hand with the liberal ideology of the political Left to undermine traditional communitarian societies — both (albeit for very different reasons) dismiss questions of culture, beliefs, origins and identity as irrelevant at best, pernicious at worst.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. […]

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. […]

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. […] Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned …